What do you think?
Rate this book
Genocide: Rwanda and Burundi
Genocide presents the historical framework surrounding the holocaust of Africa's two smallest countries, Rwanda and Burundi, where ethnic consciousness was almost nonexistent before German and Belgian colonialism. With reports on the war between the Hutu and Tutsi peoples and the rebellion in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Zaire), the author examines genocide - the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group - from socio-historical, psychological, and cultural perspectives, tracing the practice of ethnic cleansing back to pre-biblical times.
186 pages, Hardcover
First published April 1, 1998
4 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
March 24, 2023
This was really bad. Like, rough draft of a high school student's very first research paper bad. Here's a partial list of the book's problems:
•Nyankanzi doesn't properly introduce people in the text, but sends the readers to the notes at the back of the book to find out who's who.
•While he does acknowledge violence committed against Hutus, he only gives deeper exploration to violence committed *by* Hutus.
•Nyankanzi states that genocide in Africa would not have occurred without European colonization and starts to give an argument in support, but then just stops and moves on to something else.
•Argues that foreign aid is a new version of colonialism, but once again doesn't fully develop the argument. (Pity, because he did make some good points.)
•Goes well beyond the scope of the Rwanda and Burundi genocide, which really makes the book a scattered mess.
•Includes a truly bizarre chapter on what he claims are the biblical origins of genocide, in which he comes off as borderline anti-Semitic when discussing the Old Testament, and treats the New Testament as both myth and historical fact depending on what point he wants to make.
•Describes Roman soldiers tormenting Jesus as both sadistic *and* masochistic (page 111). (One or the other, dude!)
•Quotes the Song of Solomon in Latin as if that's its original language (page 119).
•Describes Thracians as a Nordic people (page 127).
•Comes up with gems like, "Many cases of homosexuality and sexual assault were recorded" (page 38). (As if the two are fucking equivalent!)
It is a poorly written, biased mess of a book that I only finished reading because I wanted to see how much worse it was going to get.
•Nyankanzi doesn't properly introduce people in the text, but sends the readers to the notes at the back of the book to find out who's who.
•While he does acknowledge violence committed against Hutus, he only gives deeper exploration to violence committed *by* Hutus.
•Nyankanzi states that genocide in Africa would not have occurred without European colonization and starts to give an argument in support, but then just stops and moves on to something else.
•Argues that foreign aid is a new version of colonialism, but once again doesn't fully develop the argument. (Pity, because he did make some good points.)
•Goes well beyond the scope of the Rwanda and Burundi genocide, which really makes the book a scattered mess.
•Includes a truly bizarre chapter on what he claims are the biblical origins of genocide, in which he comes off as borderline anti-Semitic when discussing the Old Testament, and treats the New Testament as both myth and historical fact depending on what point he wants to make.
•Describes Roman soldiers tormenting Jesus as both sadistic *and* masochistic (page 111). (One or the other, dude!)
•Quotes the Song of Solomon in Latin as if that's its original language (page 119).
•Describes Thracians as a Nordic people (page 127).
•Comes up with gems like, "Many cases of homosexuality and sexual assault were recorded" (page 38). (As if the two are fucking equivalent!)
It is a poorly written, biased mess of a book that I only finished reading because I wanted to see how much worse it was going to get.
April 18, 2022
Extremely biased to the point that I hesitate to call it scholarship. Often refers to "Hutu hoodlums" and glosses over Tutsi-on-Hutu violence (including the 1972 Ikiza) in favor of portraying a one-sided conflict rather than investigating the nuanced reality. Would not recommend.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews